Contesting Global Polarity

PRAGJYOTIKA TANVI SARMAH

“The unipolar world order is no longer accepted and is gradually losing its legitimacy,” stated Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the October 2022 World Muslim Unity Conference in Tehran. With multiple reports on the death of the Supreme Leader, followed by a series of U.S–Israeli missile strikes on Tehran, it marks a significant shift in the middle-eastern geopolitical situation. Rising tensions and regional instability leads to a bigger question: what shapes global politics today?

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the end of bipolarity, establishing the United States as one superpower standing. A single state dominated the global system and was able to achieve objectives with minimal resistance, resulting in a liberal hegemony.  The 1990s was often described as a ‘unipolar moment’, with the United States having influence over institutional agendas, and economic rules, possessing the ability to project force globally in decisions of NATO corridors, Middle Eastern capitals, and Asian trade routes.

But countries are growing and building power, establishing their own impact in global politics. It shaped the mild transition from strict unipolarity, to a multipolar condition, with non-state actors upsetting international order. Several states began to balance each other at comparable level of powers. Russia was never entirely integrated in western institutions, asserting military influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China, with its growing market and purchasing power parity with the United States, holds significant global economic dominance at contemporary times. The European Union holds the largest common market, followed by India and Japan, and play a substantial role in moulding the economic sphere. 

The evolving landscapes illustrate the shift towards multipolarity. At current times, the United States holds immense military power, with countries becoming dependent on the United States for a security umbrella. Despite this though, for many states, alliances or partnerships outside U.S. control has also become more attractive as a safeguard against unpredictable military intervention. Increasing US allies and reliance highlights a unipolarity in military power; but military superiority does not mean a result in political control. 

The geometry in economic power shows clear multipolarity, having interdependence between China and the United States. The rise and fall of economic power inclination depends on the populated markets and suppliers, resulting in a more stable share of power.  Countries like China, Russia, Turkey, and others have also repeatedly pushed for less U.S. domination in global affairs. Several major actors focus on to prevent single-handed dictator outcomes across all domains.

The unrest surrounding Iran’s leadership becomes more than just a regional crisis in this state of affairs. Subsequent strategic decisions by the United States, Israel and other countries could significantly influence the trajectory of global polarity. 

Iran holds the second largest natural gas reserve. It increases Iran’s strategic weight in world politics, and its position determines the stability in global energy prices. Resources act in equivalence to power and leverage in negotiations. Arguments can be placed that strategic considerations related to global energy markets have historically influenced U.S. policy toward Tehran, which may be seen as an attempt to prevent the diffusion of power toward competing blocs.

Unipolarity is a structural concentration of power. In structural realism or neorealism, polarity is defined not by ideology but by material capabilities distribution. It focuses on the diffusion of capabilities, predicting multipolarity is more prone to instability and conflict rather than bipolarity. If the international system were still entirely unipolar, a dramatic shift in Tehran would produce swift, decisive outcomes shaped predominantly by a single dominant actor— but that has not exactly been the case in this scenario. 

As of May 2025, International Atomic Energy Agency stated that, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state in the world, that is producing and accumulating Uranium enriched to 60 percent. While Iran asserted that it was for energy and research purposes, western intelligence was firm that it was an initiation for nuclear weapons’ preparation. Major combat operations were commenced by the United States and Isreal on Iran, which was not the first time. 

Israel described the campaign as a “pre-emptive” war to remove “existential threats”, while U.S. President Donald Trump addressed Iranians to “take over the government, as this will probably be the only chance for generations.” It was clear from the way the initial overthrow strike was carried out, and the remarks issued, that what the invading bloc wanted was regime change.

This illustrates the ability and willingness to unilaterally reshape another sovereign state’s political order—which is an inherent feature of unipolar system. It suggests the dominance of one state over the other, and a part of a broader strategy to prevent potential competitors from consolidating power (which can result in multipolarity) that might challenge U.S. predominance, as what happened in Iran, Iraq, or historically during the Cold War. 

Yet, for decades, the balance of power has been debated in academic circles. Iran has built networks of influence through proxies and political ties across the Middle East. Even with the fall of the regime, those networks aren’t erased. The sole outcome of global polities of power is often erratic, and depends on the global reaction and response to issues, which could point otherwise. 

Fragmentation of control is a key feature of multipolarity.  It refers to the diffusion of systemic authority across multiple powers, including decentralisation of decision making, and competitive influence. In contemporary times, layered polarity or asymmetrical multipolarity is majorly seen. Various areas regarding energy flows, security alliances and Political norms showcase this circumstance. 

But world politics is not only about resource monopoly, ideology conflict, or military domination, but rather digital order also plays a significant role. Technological tools allow the formation of effective arms, spread of misinformation and propaganda, and even allows leaders to converse real-time with the people. This portrays the fact that technology and algorithms carry power. Social media disturbances and digitally amplified hate have become really common catalysts for public riots, unrest, polarisation and manipulation. A substantial portion of influence and decisions are now equally dependent on tech companies and digital platforms; relying on the question that whether they will act accountable. 

Moments of crisis reveal truths that academic theories often debate about. The tremor of Tehran is not just an occurrence, but in themselves the product of a complex domino effect; they have the potential to set off further geopolitical reverberations. The twenty-first century may not belong to a single pole, but neither has it fully escaped the shadow of one. Yet, changing decisions and debates could prove otherwise, since various factors have come in the open sphere to determine the polarity of power. 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s statement on unipolarity reflected more than ideological defiance. The subsequent turmoil in Tehran transforms that earlier rhetoric into lived geopolitical reality. The ongoing events illustrate both the persistence of concentrated power and the growing resistance to it. With an asymmetric structure where dominance coexists with diffusion, the question raised by events in Tehran extends far beyond Iran itself— it is a question about the distribution of power in our time, that remains unresolved. 

(Author is a freelance writer from Assam. Views are personal. Email: pragjyotika1947@gmail.com)